Zoning. Yes or No ?

Dont forget about Luna.

Like I said what a person does on an island they own is their business zone the hell out of it. The mainland however should be left alone.

Lol... fair point That's why I support the zoning idea only for some of the new sims, as proposed by Loki.

Hmm new sims zoned. I am going to consider that as an option.

Cat

Great example of zoning gone right.

o.O

Oh yeah. A perpetually deserted sim full of paying commercial enterprises who I know several of arent even covering their rent in sales. What a resounding success.

Hiro I dont think so every time I am there it is empty. I go to change the sign on my tiny kiosk. I think you need to pop over there again

Cat

Wrong.. WE don't do those things... Linden Labs did those things.

That is not zoning, by any definition or strech of the imagination - that is game structure.

The only one of your examples that even approaches a "zoning" of any sort is the "natural zoning" line... But it takes a huge stretch of the imagination to make "a desire to associate" with "zoning". And that is what you have done.

Korg,

You're right .. the question should be changed a bit:

Player / Group controlled zoning or computer controlled zoning?

I won't say none, as we already have computer controlled zoning ..

Eh, at the moment I am not in favor of zoning. Otherwise I wouldnt be able to have my little shop in the same sim as my home (I like to share the prim allotment between the two). I also agree with Cat, I mean, who wants five or more clubs in one sim, and a mall or two? Just think of the lag in that one sim! Yes it would be nice not to have to worry about a club poping up in my backyard, but I wouldnt want to have to fly over a laggified zoned sim if it was between the telehub and my destination!

I am also guessing that club owners are not too terribly excited about this idea, because as was stated before, these are "money makers" and zoning would bring thier competition too close for comfort. I am guessing that club owners would avoid the zoned sims and go for the unzoned sims just because there is less of a chance of another club close by. Again that is just my guess.

Also, if I wanted to host a party at my home and maybe put up a couple of cool looking lights, would this be considered a club and not be allowed? Or if I someone wanted to sell the few items they have that are worth selling (perhaps they are new) out of thier home, would this be not allowed.

There would also not be a good way of enforcing this rule, there would be people that would get around it I am sure. It would put more of a burden on the Lindens to enforce this. And at this moment I would much rather them be working on fixing existing bugs then a silly thing such a zoning! As for player enforced, if a group wants to zone a sim, more power to them (there are some examples of this already: all of the malls that have their own sim is an example).

As of this moment half of the places on "popular places" are clubs. I personally think there are too many clubs, but this does show that there are a lot of people that enjoy going to clubs. Perhaps we should take this as a challenge to create more exciting, fun and interesting places Perhaps if we do so, someday in the future, clubs will be a distant memory (yes I know I am dreaming here) Yay for Spittonie! Fabulously creative!!

And how shall this be enforced? Aside from the fact that enforcement has never been LL's strong suit, add to that the scenario: "hey, so I like to build my house with black walls and no windows and put tons of particle and light effects in it; can I help it if I have 30 friends who like to hang out there?"

Nice concept, but likely unworkable.

The idea is whoever is running the sim can kick you out if they think you're not up to code.

Like the number of prims allowed can be enforced, the resources used can be monitored and a quotum enforced. So far, no one has been able to explain to me why it should be fair that someone who owns 20% of a sim can use 80% of its resources. Which, in fact, is the bottomline of why the discussion was started on zoning and/or resource allocation.

If someone wants to run a business, that is fine by me and I applaud that. But then he/she should invest in the infrastructure as well, which translated to SL would mean buying a proportionate piece of land to sustain his/her resource needs.

Ah... Blake.. you didn't catch the sarcasm in my post that you quoted.

I can be clearer.... I will be "for zoning" when someone can pry my credit card from my cold, dead hands and charge things to me so that other people can enjoy themselves on my dime.

Which in fact is exactly what is happening. The club owners and event holders are using up the resources paid for by the other land owners in the sim.

I love the idea of having future sims that are zoned. Though I would rather see these continue to come from the community than for LL to step in and do it. Much like how Slate has handled their area, Luskwood, Taber, Neualtenburg, Little Venice, Indigo, Midnight City, etc and so on. I think that it is up to the community to come together and make smaller communities where they can work on their own requirements for zoning in an area, sim, or multiple sims if possible.

What resources? What are you paying for that they are taking from you? Even if we accept that to be the case, what's the answer? Because zoning isnt it.

When we had shared prim resources, everyone bitched about small land owners having way in excess of their fair share, and they introduced per parcel prim resources. The result was that to build anything beyond the simplest designs, you had to part with a helluva lot more cash and hold far more land.

What's the anti-club equivalent? For that matter, what is the anti-event equivalent, since thats essentially what we're complaining about; SL sims aren't good at handling people. Therefore is it selfish for one plot to have more than their share of people to the detriment of other land owners?!

You're essentially saying that anyone who has a popular venue is inconveniencing the rest of us. Well, I can assure you the Lindens don't see it that way. We all know dwell is king and the crowd pullers get the monetary rewards.

And again... I'm just asking the questions... I hate clubs too. But I just can't see how you can be any fairer on resources, and I really don't think zoning is the answer to any problem, other than for those with a vested interest in simply ousting clubs from their neighborhood.

I guess there is a case here for new Linden specified themed sims. I can't really see any objections with making a few new 'residents only' sims for people who simply want a little house and will accept and abide by the rules of that sim. But as has been said before, I don't want to see the Lindens having to deal with this to the detriment of bugfixes and development.

Okay, first of all, there's no need for your vicious attitude. Take your smartass "I'm a teacher" attitude and shove it, dude.
---
And actually, I specifically cited an area that WE do.

These are examples of players exerting their own guidance over how the land is "zoned".
- Private sims often have themes (malls, historical/fantastic places, clubs-only, art, etc)
- Friends often get together, buy a chunk of land in a sim, and create their own continuous theme along the land they own
- Large malls are large tracks of land owned by one or more people that is specifically for selling - essentially zoned commercial - and rezoned if another person buys the land and decides not to have it a mall. (Though often people buy the malls for the dwell in order to continue a mall, like Galleria -> Rodeo Drive)

In addition to that, the land that WE choose to buy acts as the demand side of a supply-demand relationship for released land.

- WE demand and buy up M land more than PG land, so LL releases more M land. (Remember back in 1.2 when we had a handful only of M sims?)
- WE decide if we like terraforming or snow sims or whatnot - when snow sims were first released, there was only a few, but there was a demand so LL released a lot of them.
- WE show LL that we want waterways and roads by our interest in vehicles.

So you're wrong, Korg. These are all valid examples of zoning which we take part in. And as new sims are released with different settings, whether it be something as limited as whether it's snow-covered or not, or whether it be specification for how buildings must be erected, our choice to purchase or not purchase the land affects how future zoning takes place.

And besides, you completely and utterly missed my point. You're against "zoning", right? Well, zoning already happens. I clearly stated a variety of ways it already does. I'm not sure what your perception of "zoning" is, but it seems to be radically more restrictive than anything any player or Linden has discussed.

Shouting louder doesn't make anyone hear your ideas any better, Korg. Participating in discussion with people without insulting them or their intelligence does.

blaze,

<<The idea is whoever is running the sim can kick you out if they think you're not up to code.>>

... and of course, whoever is running the sim will deal with such issues by demonstrating the wisdom and maturity that is so often seen in these forums.

Kris, this is why I primarily focus on resource quotas, and not so much on zoning in my last posts (I even said that when a decent resource allocation scheme would be introduced, it might as well make zoning unneccessary). Prim quotas have been introduced to tackle specific problems, and resource quotas should be introduced as well to tackle comparable problems.

You ask what I'm paying for that they are taking away. Well, I am no techie, but I do know that CPU cycles is one thing they are taking away from me and the other land owners. And if they take away enough of that, lag for us will be the result.

If resource management will be too hard to implement, I'll be more then happy to move to a "residential only" sim, if it would be decided to introduce these.

With all due respect, you aren't paying for or guaranteed any particular slice of any resource save for an allocation of land you pay a tier for. You don't 'own' an equivalent amount of cpu cycles, and neither should you. I assure you that if all those clever games coders out there had to contend with resource restraints while 80% of residents did precisely nothing with their allocation, innovation in SL would die a quick and painful death.

While you raise a good point about the way things are, I think it's understood that some people in this thread are lobbying for change, and so you're sort of begging the question.

I guess we differ on this, then. I do not share this notion of yours. Which does not mean you are not entitled to have and share it

My notion on this is that by buying land and paying our monthly land fees, we rent part of the server (LL launched this scheme to cover the server costs). Therefore we are entitled to a certain part of the server capacity, which includes CPU cycles and such. This is not much different from server and webspace rental provided by ISPs.

yes.

On the contrary. LL guarantee you nothing. They dont even guarantee you that the land you're paying for is actually available to own. They guarantee no minimum uptime or service level agreement. Therefore they are nothing like an ISP. You are entitled to precisely nothing. If you don't believe me, ask LL directly. They will tell you the same.